N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT ASAL NAZI, Pe titione r,
v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . Nos. 08-70851, 10-70980 Age n c y No. A076-715-598
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe titions for Re vie w of Orde rs of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls A rgue d a nd Subm itte d

Se pte m be r 2, 2015 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : GR

AB E R , R AW L INSON, and WA TFORD, C i rc uit Judge s. Asa l Na z i , a

native an d c itiz e n of Iran, pe titions for re vie w of orde rs of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a l s (“ B IA” ) de ny ing he r m otions to re ope n he r re m ova l proc e e dings to pre se nt e v ide nc e tha t she would be pe rse c ute d if re turne d to Ira n. 1. The B IA did not a

buse its disc re tion by

de ny ing Na z i’ s first m otion to
re ope n . In support of tha t m otion, Na

z i pre s e nte d e v ide nc e tha

t wom e n a re 

# FIL ED OCT 08 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.Pa ge 2 of 4

sy ste m atic a lly disc rim i nate d a ga inst in Ira n. A s the B IA note d, m

u c h of this
e vide nc e wa s unda

te d or pre dat e d he r initia l proc e e dings a nd, thus, fa ile d to show that c onditions in Ira

n ha d c ha nge d for the worse sinc e Na z i initially sought re lie f from re m ova l. M ore ove r, the B IA c onc lude d tha t, to thee xte nt the e v ide nc e e sta blishe d c ha

nge d c ountry

c onditions, it “ indic at e [d] prim arily a c ra c kdown on the m anne r of dre s s for wom e n a nd a ga inst a c tivists” and wa s insuffic i e nt to
e sta blish tha t Na z i wa s prim a

fa c ie e l igible for re lie f. B e c a u se Na z i m a de no showing a

t tha t tim e t hat she wa s a

n a c tivist or would not c om ply with thedre ss c ode , a nd thus tha

t the re wa s som e “ indiv i dualize d thre at to pe rse c ute he r ,” N ajmabadi v . Holde r , 597 F.3d 983, 992 (9th C ir. 2010), theB IA did not a buse its disc re tion in de ny i ng he r first m otion to re ope n . 2. The B IA a

buse d its disc re tion, howe ve r, by de ny ing he r se c ond m otion to
re ope n . In support of tha t m otion, Na

z i pre s e nte d e v ide nc e tha

t the Irania

n gove rnm e nt ha d

re c e n t ly c ra c ke d down on politic a l disside nts, viole ntly suppre sse d prote sts following the 2009 e le c tion, a

nd de ta ine d se ve ra l W e ste rne rs who ha d e nte re d the c o untry . Evide nc e of the Irania n gove rnm e n t’ s inc re a se d
se nsitivity

to, a nd bruta l re pre ssion of, politic a l disse nt following the 2009
e le c tions wa s una

va ila b le at the tim e of Na z i’ s origina l he a ring, a nd it wa s m ate ria l be c a use it wa s “ q

ua lita tive ly diffe re nt” from the e vide n c e pre se nte d with he r firstPa ge 3 of 4

m otion to re o pe n . S

e e Toufighi v . Muk

ase y , 538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th C ir. 2008); c f. N ajmabadi , 597 F.3d a

t 987. That e vide nc e wa s a l so suffic ie nt to e sta blish prim a

fa c ie e ligibility

for
re lie f. C f. Toufighi , 538 F.3d a

t 996–97. In order to e sta blish prim a

fa c i e e ligibility for re l ie f, Na z i ne e d e d only to introduc e e vide nc e tha t “ re ve a ls a
re a s ona ble like lihood tha

t the sta tutory re quire m e nts for re lie f ha v e be e n sa

tisfie d,” Tade v osy an v . Holde r , 743 F.3d 1250, 1255 (9th C ir. 2014) (quoting Garc i a v . Holde r , 621 F.3d 906, 912 (9th C ir. 2010))— in pa rtic ula r, tha t she ha s a

we llfounde d fe ar of future pe rse c ution on a c c ount of a prote c te d ground, se e Malty v . Ashc roft , 381 F.3d 942, 947–48 (9th C ir. 2004). TheB IA de t e rm i ne d tha t Na z i ha d not e sta

blishe d prim a fa c ie e ligibility for re lie f. In the B IA’ s vie w, he r proffe re d e vide nc e tha

t she oppose s the Irania

n re gim e and ha s atte nde d antire gim e prote sts in C a lifornia , wa s insuffic ie n t to e sta blish tha t she is a lre a dy known to the

Irania n gove rnm e nt a s a

disside nt or tha

t she is a “ ‘ v isible ’ opposition politic a l a c t ivist a nd/or disse n te r” or a m e m b e r of “ any

Irania n opposition or pro-W e ste rn group in the Unite d State s .” Na z i introduc e d e vide nc e , howe ve r, tha t the Irania

n re gim e ha s kille d, be ate n, a nd de t a ine d ordina

ry prote ste rs, not just le a ding dissidents or m e m be rs of
e sta blishe d, orga

niz e d opposition groups. If Na z i we re re patriate d to Ira

n a ndPa ge 4 of 4

c ontinue d to voic e he r opposition to the re gim e public l y , the re is som e like lihood that she would fa c e pe rse c ution on a c c ount of he r politic a l opinion, re ga rdle ss of whe the r the re gim e is a

ware tha t she ha s pre viously pa

rtic ipate d in prote sts in the Unite d State s. In light of the

e v ide nc e pre se nte d be fore the B IA, we c onc lude tha t the re is a “ re a sona ble like lihood” tha

t, if re o pe ning is gra

nte d, Na z i will bea

ble to
e sta blish a we ll-founde d fe ar of future pe rse c ution e ithe r by showing tha

t the re is a

“ patte rn or pra c tic e ” of pe rse c uting a nti-re gim e prote ste rs in Ira n or tha t, in
c om pa rison to politic a l disside nts in Ira n ge ne ra lly , she fa c e s a

gre ate r risk of pe rse c ution a s a

public prote stor, a wom an, a nd a long-tim e re side n t of the Unite d Stat e s. Se e W

ak k ary v . Holde r , 558 F.3d 1049, 1060–63 (9th C ir. 2009); 8 C .F.R
. § 1208.13(b)(2)(iii)(A). 3. B e c a use we grant the pe t ition in No. 10-70980, we ne e d not re a c h Na z i’ s c la im tha t the B IA’ s de nia l of he r m otions to re ope n viola te d he r Fifth Am e ndm e nt right to dueproc e ss of la

w on the ground tha

t she wa s a m inor a

t the tim e of he r initia l a pplic ation, tha

t she proc e e de d sole ly

a s a de rivat ive be ne fic ia

ry of he r fa the r’ s a pplic at ion, a

nd tha t she la c ke d a

n a de quate opportunity

to pre se nt he r own c la im s for re lie f. PE T IT IO N G RANT E D in No. 10-70980; PE T IT IO N DE NIE D in No. 08-70851.Nazi v

. Lync h , Nos. 08-70851 and 10-70980 Raw linson, Cir c uit Judge , c onc ur r ing in par t and disse nting in par t: I c onc ur in tha

t portion of the

disposition de

ny ing the pe tition for re v ie w of the d e nia l of the first m otion to re ope n file d by Asa l Na z i (Na z i). I re spe c tfully

disse nt from

tha t portion of the

disposition gra

nting the pe tition for re vie w of the de nia l of Na z i’ s se c ond m otion to re ope n. W e re vie w de nia l of the m otion to re ope n for a n a b use of disc re tion. Se e Go v
. Holde r , 744 F.3d 604, 609 (9th C ir. 2014). Applying this sta nda rd, the de c ision of theB oa

rd of Im m i gration Appe a ls (B IA) “ m ay only be re ve rse d if it is
arbitra ry , irrationa l, or c ontra

ry to the la w.” Id . (c i tation a

n d inte rna l quota

tion
m arks om itte d). In m

y vie w, this sta

nda rd ha s not be e n m e t. Na z i spe c ific a l ly

c onte nds tha

t the B IA a

buse d its disc re tion in holding tha t she fa ile d to de m onstra

te individualiz e d thre ats to he r in Ira n, a nd in holding tha

t he r politic a l a c tivitie s we re lim ite d to the e xte nt tha t she would not ha

ve c om e to the atte ntion of Ira

nia n a uthoritie s. The B IA c onc lude d tha

t Na z i’ s supple m e nta l de c la ra tion re fle c te d

only tha t she ha d “ be e n involve d in a

n unspe c ifie d m anne r with othe r Ira nia ns” ; ha d “ be e n atte nding prote sts by

Fe de ra l B uilding in Los Ange le s” ; a nd ha d “ atte nde d a

sile nt vigil e l se w he re in the m e m ory of a wom an na

m e d Ne da

kille d in Ira

n during the 

# FIL ED OCT 08 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

1unre st following the 2009 pre side ntia l e le c tions.” (inte rna l quota t ion m arks
om i tte d). The B IA note d tha

t the photos subm

itte d by Na z i inc lude d one s tha

t
a ppe are d “ t o ha

ve be e n ta

ke n on a single unknown da

te at a n unide ntifie d loc ation.” The B IA obse rve d tha t it wa s “ unc l e ar whe re and whe n the photos spe l ling out ‘ Ne da ’ we re ta ke n.” The B IA ana ly z e d the photos a s sugge sting “ at
m ost” tha t Na z i atte nde d one ra lly in Los Ange le s a nd “pe rha p s a se pa ra te vigil” at
an unknown loc ation. The B IA note d tha

t Na z i subm itte d no e v ide nc e tha t a ny one in Ira

n wa s e ve n aware of he r involve m e nt in a ny prote sts in Am e ric a . The B IA thus re je c t e d Na z i’ s “ c ha

ra c te riz ation of he rse lf a s a ‘ visible ’ opposition politic a l a c tivist a nd/or disse nte r.” (c ita

tions omi tte d); se e Bhasin v . Gonzale s , 423 F.3d 977, 984 (9th C ir. 2005) (a rtic ulating tha

t “ an a pplic ant m

ust ge ne ra lly

show a n individualiz e d, rathe r tha n a ge ne ra liz e d, risk of pe rse c ution” to m e e t the prim a fa c ie e ligibility
re quire m e nt for a

m otion to re ope n); se e also N ajmabadi v . Holde r , 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th C i r. 2010) (de ny ing c ha lle nge to de n ia l of m o tion to re ope n be c a use substa ntia l e vide nc e supporte d the B IA’ s c onc lusion tha t the pe t itione r’ s e v ide nc e that she wa s a

“ we ste rniz e d wom an” and a politic a l disse nte r to the Irania n re gim e did not de m onstra

te an individualiz e d thre at but ra the r “ c onditions a ffe c ting the
2popula

tion a t la rge ” ). The B IA’ s vie w of this e vide nc e wa s not “ arbitra ry , irrat iona l, or c ontra

ry to la w.” Go , 744 F.3d a

t 609 (c ita

tion omitte d). Although the B IA c ould ha

ve de te rm i ne d tha

t the subm itte d e vide nc e pre se nte d a re a sona ble like l ihood tha

t Na z i would suffe r pe rse c ution in Ira n, it wa s not c om

pe l le d to do so. Se e N

ajmabadi , 597 F.3d a

t 986 (re c ogniz i ng the “ broa d disc re tion to gra nt or de ny ” a

m otion to
re ope n ). It is ina ppropria te for us a s a

re vie wing c ourt to re -we igh the e vide nc e pre s e nte d to the B IA and re a c h a diffe re nt c onc l usion. As our c o lle a gue Judge Farris so e loque ntly

sta te d: “ [The m a

jority ] would re -try . I am c onte nt to re vie w.” Li v . Ashc roft , 378 F.3d 959, 964 n.1 (9th C ir. 2004). I re spe c tfully

disse nt.

3